scottmac Sat, 06/09/2007 - 10:58
User Badges:
  • Green, 3000 points or more

The practical limit on the number of users is determined by what kind of applications/traffic flows those users will be using.

To a lesser degree, if you have users operating 802.11b on your 802.11g wireless system, it will also knock down the capacity some.

802.11n is not is not supported on Cisco brand APs, and almost certainly will not be until it is formally standardized (plus production time).

Linksys has some 802.11n product, but is usually considered SOHO / consumer class and not great for a commercial environment (tends to lack features bebeficial to larger-scale deployments).

Good Luck


Rob Huffman Sun, 06/10/2007 - 02:57
User Badges:
  • Super Blue, 32500 points or more
  • Hall of Fame,

    Founding Member

  • Cisco Designated VIP,

    2017 IP Telephony, Unified Communications

Hi sh77,

Just to add a note to Scotts good info.This is a good question that comes up every once in a while. As you can see from the answers in the links below,there are alot of factors that come into play.The consensus from everything I have read would be 20-30 users per AP depending on actual applications etc. Have a read for some great answers provided in this forum by some excellent "hands on" experts:

Here is a cisco doc that relates to this question;

Q. How many clients can associate to the AP?

A. The AP has the physical capacity to handle 2048 MAC addresses. However, because the AP is a shared medium and acts as a wireless hub, the performance of each user decreases as the number of users increases on an individual AP. Ideally, not more than 24 clients should associate with the AP because the throughput of the AP is reduced with each client that associates to the AP.

From this Q&A doc;

As for 802.11n I beleive the ratification date for the standard has been pushed back again (until at least 2008). Have a look at these comments from two Cisco reps in recent threads;

Brad from Cisco Systems;

Seema from Cisco Systems;

Hope this helps!



This Discussion